HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10041988 - IO.3 . . BOARD OF SUPERVISORS I.O. 3
FROM: INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE Cwtra
September 26, 1988 C )sta
DATE'
Impact of Foster Home Placements on
SUBJECT: East County Schools
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) a BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1 . Request the County Superintendent of Schools to evaluate the
wisdom of pursuing the following legislative proposal and
give the Board of Supervisors his opinion regarding whether
the County and the Superintendent jointly should pursue such
legislation.
2. Request the County Administrator and Social Services
Director, in cooperation with the County Superintendent of
Schools, to draft legislation which would make the school
district from which a child is placed into foster care the
child' s district of residence for the purpose of determining
which school district is responsible to pay for the costs of
special education services in those instances where. the
school district where the child is placed does not receive
reimbursement from the State for the child' s special .
education needs. Either in this legislation or in a
separate piece of legislation provide the State Department
of Education with sufficient funds to fully reimburse school
districts for the actual cost of special education services
and special education transportation.
3 . . If the County Superintendent of Schools is willing to
co-sponsor the above legislation with the Board of
Supervisors, request the County Administrator to ask
Assemblyman Robert Campbell to introduce such legislation as
soon as possible after the 1989-90 Session of the
Legislature convenes in December, 1988 .
4 . Request the County Administrator and County Counsel to
monitor the SB 90 test claim on reimbursement of costs for
support of special education and on the progress of the
Lucia Mar Unified School District Vs. Bill Honig case which
is before the Commission on State Mandates and provide our
Committee with a status report on December 12, 1988.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X_ YES SIGNATURE:
_ RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR X RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
X AP ROVE _ OTHER
SIGNATURE s : Sunne McPeak Tom Torlakson
ACTION OF BOARD ON October 4, 1988 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT III ? AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TARN
AYES; NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE� SHOWN.
CC: County Administrator ATTESTED
Social. Services Director PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
Community Development Director SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
County Counsel
Supt. of Schools (via CAO) �c�-�.c.� �,�nZ��
BY ,DEPUTY
M 382/7-83
Page 2
5. Request the County Administrator and Social Services
Director, in conjunction with the County Superintendent of
Schools, to determine what action is needed to equalize the
reimbursement by the State to large versus small districts
for special education services.
6 . Request the Director of Community Development, Director of
Social Services, and the County Administrator to review the
recommendations contained in Supervisor Torlakson' s memo on
the need to address the housing needs of the foster care
program which the Board approved on June 21, 1988 and
provide our Committee with a status report on those
recommendations at our meeting on December 12.
7 . Leave this matter on referral to our Committee.
BACKGROUND:
On. June 21, 1988, at the request of Supervisor Torlakson, the
Board of Supervisors referred to our Committee several
recommendations relating to the apparent impact on small school
districts of the placement of foster children into foster homes
in small school districts. In addition, there were several other
recommendations relating to the need to take steps to encourage
foster parents to accept handicapped children by providing
funding for home modifications which are needed in order to care
for physically handicapped children and related issues dealing
with the need to assist foster parents in the housing area.
On September 26, 1988, our Committee received the attached report
from the County Administrator' s Office which is concurred in by
the Social Services Department. There appear to be problems
created when foster children are placed in foster homes in small
school districts which do not always have adequate resources to
meet the needs of the foster child who has come from another area
of the County or State. Further exploration is needed with the
Superintendent of Schools ' Office to determine exactly what the
problem is and what solutions may be acceptable to the
educational establishment.
_However, our Committee wants to do whatever is necessary to
insure that small rural school districts are not disadvantaged
financially simply because the district may happen to contain a
number of foster homes or institutions which care for physically,
mentally or emotionally handicapped children. To the extent that
a small school district is already over its 100 "cap" for special
education children, it appears that the district does not
necessarily receive additional funds when additional special
education children are placed in the school district by court
order. While education funding for special education children is
exceedingly complex and is supplied from a variety of sources for
children with various types of disabilities, we want to insure
that the County is not adding to the problem being faced by these
districts if we can possibly avoid it. We have, therefore, made
the above recommendations in an effort to define the nature and
extent of the problem and determine what solutions are feasible
and appropriate.
The remaining referrals relating to housing issues have not been
fully explored to date and we simply want to reemphasize that our
Committee still wants to look into ways we can encourage foster
parents to care for foster children where the lack of adequate
housing may be a financial barrier to becoming licensed.
OFFICE OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Administration Building
Martinez, California
INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
To: Supervisor Sunne W. McPeak Date
Supervisor Tom Torlakson September 22, 1988
Phil Batchelor The Impact of Special
From: County Administra or Subject: Education Needs on East
By John Gregory County Schools
As a result of several meetings with East County schools, members
of the -Internal Operations Committee had requested staff provide .
a report for review on the impact of special education needs on
East County schools. As a result, the Committee is asked to take
the following actions:
1 . Accept report from County Administrator' s staff, and direct
Social Services and County Administrator to collaborate on
legislative proposals for incorporation into the Board of
Supervisors ' 1989 Legislative Program addressing the follow-
ing:
a Setting parent/legal guardians ' residence as a child' s
school district residence for the purpose of developing
a payment schedule for reimbursement of costs incurred
by the school district providing the special education
needs of that child;
o Securing State Department of Education reimbursement of
actual cost for special education and transportation
for special education students.
2 . Direct County Counsel and County Administrator' s staff to
monitor SB 90 test claim on reimbursement of costs for State
support of special education and report to the Internal
Operations Committee in 60 days on any further developments
on the Lucia Mar Unified School District Vs. Bill Honig case
which has been remanded to the Commission on State Mandates.
BACKGROUND:
The Internal Operations Committee had requested that an
investigation be made into the matter of how licensed child care
facilities for children with special physical and educational
needs are impacting 'the East County school districts.
Page 2
The issue of providing educational services to children placed in
licensed children' s institutions throughout the East County
school district has become a significant concern. There has
been a major increase in the number of children placed in East
County school districts without corresponding increases from the
State in either the special education unit rate allocation or
amount for growth.
As an illustration of this problem, following are figures on the
number of special education students per school district as of
April 1988 for the East Contra Costa County area:
Special Ed Total Pupil Percent
District Pupil Count Enrollment of Total
Antioch Unified 1,224 11,308 10. 8
Brentwood 306 1,625 18. 8
Byron Union Elementary 69 499 13 . 8
Knightsen 34 237 14. 3
Liberty Union High School 126 1,562 8. 1
Oakley Union 176 1,843 9. 5
Pittsburg Unified 756 7,400 10 . 2
TOTAL 2,691 24,474 11%
It is estimated by the State that normal special education pupil
percentages are approximately 10% of the total enrollment in any
district within California. However, as shown, the three
districts of Brentwood, Byron and Knightsen are significantly
above the State average. Given the County average of money spent
on elementary and high school students of $3, 257, this amounts to
a total investment of $8,764,587 that is earmarked for special
education students in East County. However, this figure only
represents the normal expenditure per pupil in a school district.
All of these students require highly specialized educational
services which may severely impact the fiscal resources of the
school districts involved. These school districts tend to be
smaller in nature due to the relatively sparse population levels
of East County as opposed to the rest of Contra Costa County.
Because of this population level and its subsequent lower housing
costs, East County is a natural area to attract licensed
children' s institutions. Such institutions are foster family
homes, group homes, and small family homes. Foster family homes
licensed by the County Social Services Department may be used by
any Social Service Department or Probation Department throughout
the State. Once a home is licensed under current State law, no
Social Service Department can prohibit other counties from
Page 3
placing children. More urban counties, such as San Francisco,
have an insufficient number of foster homes within the county.
Given this, these counties seek areas with available homes, which
earmarks East County for placement of children. Generally,
children placed in these homes will have some special education
needs and/or behavior or physical problems to be addressed.
County placing agencies are not funded to meet the educational
needs of children and do not have the financial resources to
supplement the local school district for costs of special
education or transportation. This issue of financial
responsibility has indirectly resulted in conflicts between
school districts and the State Department of Education on
appropriate levels of fiscal support. Before 1979, school
districts were required by statute to contribute to the education
of students from their district who attended State-operated
schools for the handicapped. Chapter 237 of the Statutes of 1979
repealed those provisions and the State assumed full financial
.responsibility for the education of all students.
The State had full financial responsibility in. 1980 when Article
XIIIB of the California Constitution became effective and
continued until Chapter 102 of the Statutes of 1981 was passed,
which provides that "the district of residence of. . . any pupil
attending a State-operated school. . . shall pay the school of
attendance for each pupil an amount equal to 100 of the excess
annual cost of education of pupils attending a State-operated
school pursuant to this part. " When the school districts refused
to pay the State Department of Education as provided, the money
was deducted from the district' s annual appropriations.
The Lucia Mar Unified School District filed an SB 90 test claim
with the Board of Control (now Commission on State Mandates) in
1984 for reimbursement pursuant to Chapter 102, Statutes of 1981.
The case went to court and culminated in a California Supreme
Court ruling that if a statute shifts the responsibility for
partial financial support 'of a State-operated program from the
State to local agencies, that statute contains a "new program"
which must be reimbursed.
The case has been remanded to the Commission on State Mandates
( formerly the Board of Control) for a determination on the issue
of whether the districts are "mandated" to make the contributions
in question. This is an issue because the State has argued that
there is no "mandate" because the districts have other options.
(They can provide a local program for handicapped students, send
them to private schools, or send them to State-operated schools. )
Page 4
The districts are expected to argue that there is a mandate
because there is no reasonable alternative to using the State
schools, since State schools are the least expensive alternative.
This is a significant decision as it appears there may be local
agency recourse against the State Department of Educationto
recover additional expenses incurred for special education and
associated transportation costs.
The problem of inadequate funding for special education in East
County will continue given population increases and social trends
and problems. Alternatives must include the proposed
recommendation in this report and securing full State Department
of Education funding for special education costs.
PJB:JG:clg